This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Atlanta Ousts Fire Chief Who Has Antigay Views

Originally Posted by JoeTrumps

I agree he was wrong to do it. but to fire him for it is absurd. what if he was the best, most qualified fire chief in the city? what if your house burns down tomorrow because of an incompetent replacement?
suddenly this man's "crime" wouldn't seem so bad.

For the same reason that any captain in the Navy would be relieved of command if he did the exact same thing, because as soon as the book was published:

- every LGBT under that captain's command would fear for his or her career if his or her sexual orientation were exposed, and

- every homophobe in a position of authority would feel empowered to make things tougher on anyone under their authority whom they suspected (or knew) was LGBT.

And the combination of the two - especially in the modern day when marriage equality is legal in a majority of our states - is a serious detriment to the effectiveness of the command.

This retired Navy man is telling you that YES, it DOES work this way. It's not a PC thing, it's a LEADERSHIP thing.

“To do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what he’s doing is good" - Solzhenitsyn

"...with the terrorists, you have to take out their families." - Donald Trump

Re: Atlanta Ousts Fire Chief Who Has Antigay Views

Originally Posted by tacomancer

snyder vs phelps covers a public area, not the work place. It doesn't apply.

Government employment is public. That's why they are called public servants.

The five great lies of the Left Wrong:
We can be Godless and free. • “Social justice” through forced redistribution of wealth. • Silencing religious opinions counts as “diversity”. • Freedom without moral and personal responsibility. • Civilization can survive the intentional undermining of the family.

Re: Atlanta Ousts Fire Chief Who Has Antigay Views

Originally Posted by jmotivator

No, government and private employment is not the same in this case since the Private employer is not required to protect free speech of its employees while the government is required to protect the free speech of everyone, including those working for the government.

Really?

So if I worked for a federal agency in 2012 and came into the office wearing a "NO BAMA" pin on one side of my shirt and a "VOTE MITT" on the other...that'd be okay? The government would be required ot "protected" that speech? That wouldn't be a punishable offense?

Or say I worked for the FBI as a non-LEO and I was passing around campaign pamplets regarding Mitt to people in the office....that'd be okay? Something that the governmnet would be "defending"?

Originally Posted by MrWonka

In fact, I would wager to you that within 10 years of today's date that stupid MAGA hat will be registered as a symbol of hate on par with a Swastika.

Re: Atlanta Ousts Fire Chief Who Has Antigay Views

Originally Posted by Zyphlin

One potential litigation threat, from an individual without any concrete evidence that those making the decisions have a prejudice against the suggested protected class in this instance (religion) OR use believe it is their professional duty to cultivate said prejudices...

Vs

MULTIPLE potential litigation threats, from individuals with a tangible and concrete piece of evidence that said supervisor has such prejudices based on his religious views AND that he feels it's his duty to use his professional possition to cultivate a culture in line with his religious views.

Both aren't good for the city...the second is absolutely worse.

No, it's not. The issue is whether they win the court cases. An agency that makes sound legal decisions that are upheld in court reduces the frivolous lawsuits while one that runs scared and preemptively fires personnel opens the doors for frivolous lawsuits.

Look at it this way: Since the city fired the chief, would they have any standing when a former employ steps forward and claims discrimination? No, they wouldn't. They have already tacitly sided with all future plaintiffs regardless of the evidence because they have already bypassed any evidence of actual discriminatory acts in their firing decision. If someone sues the city now and the city takes the position that there is no evidence to support the claim then they add credibility to any lawsuit the chief brings.

The city is screwed.

Good thing "hate speech" has nothing to do with this

The City of Atlanta better hope it does because it is the only hope they have of winning a lawsuit.

Again, no they hadn't.

They suspended an individual while undergoing an investigation into alledged misconduct. This is something that happens routinely by government employers prior to any crime being proven to have been committed.

Then they claim to have fired him for talking about an ongoing investigation, for publishing a book without proper authorization from the department (again, I note he disagrees with this assertion), and due to the liability issues associated with his statements.

You may think they fired him because they disliked his religious speech; but the fact is that is not the official reason stated for his termination. And your continued attempt to paint your opinion and guess as to why he was fired as some kind of undisputable fact is not only dishonest but massively flawed.

And the suspension had everything to do with his statement of religious beliefs. Attempting to further silence him during that suspension is not really a point on the scoreboard for them.

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he stops voting for the Free Fish party.

Re: Atlanta Ousts Fire Chief Who Has Antigay Views

He didn't? What are you basing this off of? Because I've seen numerous stories reporting that he absolutely did state that, including quotes which suggests a direct lift from his book.

Do you have anything of substance to verify that said reports are fraudulent and that his book does not contain such a claim?

As I suggested in another post...sans that claim, my view on the matter changes.

Also, I noted that he disputed the cities claim that he did not get the proper approval in the proper amount of time. That doesn't change the fact that the city is claiming that as one of the reasons of his termination. Currently it is a "he said/she said" situation unless he can provide some kind of evidence of himself going to them for authorization and recieving it.

I don't know if he did. I don't know if he didn't. But to suggest definitively he was fired for his religious views when the city has claimed multiple reasons for his termination OTHER than his religious views is simply a factually dishonest statement. My pointing out their claim was not to suggest their claim was legit, but merely to suggest that claiming WHY he was fired as some kind of undisputable fact...when the "why" you're claiming doesn't actually match what the city has officially claimed...is a misrepresentation.

Did you not read my post I included it in there?

The book includes this passage: “Uncleanness—whatever is opposite of purity; including sodomy, homosexuality, lesbianism, pederasty, bestiality, all other forms of sexual perversion.”
Cochran said the language he used was lifted directly from biblical text.
“My intent was not to hurt anyone. I wrote straight from the words of the Bible,” he said.

which would make sense if the chapter you are reading about is regarding what the bible says about sexual morality which it was.

you evidently didn't read my post at all.
He had already contacted legal and got approval.

The city can claim whatever they want to. they have to prove that he was discriminating on the job in order to fire him.
they cannot fire him for writing a study book for his church group.

his religious views are a protected class whether you agree with them or not.
if he wasn't discriminating in his job and there is no evidence that he was then the city has committed religious discrimination and is liable.

and if people know anything about the English language than they know that a , is used to separate items in a list. yet that doesn't draw the headlines compared to
Chief compares gays to pedophiles.

Re: Atlanta Ousts Fire Chief Who Has Antigay Views

Originally Posted by Risky Thicket

I don't believe you clearly understand the issue. Cochran's religious views were written by him in a book with his name on it and distributed at work to his subordinates. In his book he expressed his views regarding homosexuality and he stated that his primary mission as chief was to cultivate the culture of the fire department to glorify God. His book containing those statements were distributed in a work environment on city property to his subordinates.

It wasn't specifically his religious beliefs, and the Atlanta city administration made that clear back in November, but rather that he distributed a book he wrote stating his religious beliefs in a work environment on city property to subordinates. THAT violated city policy and THAT is the stated reason given by the City of Atlanta.

I don't know how anyone posting here can clearly understand an issue of constitutional law that courts have not yet settled. The city's policy would mean nothing if it violated a constitutionally protected right, for example the freedom of speech. Whether it does in this case is a difficult question that may go to court, and I can only give my opinion that under the circumstances this was protected speech. Neither I nor anyone else can know for certain that a court would hold that it was, any more than anyone here can know for certain that Atlanta's enforcement of this rule or policy did not violate any of this man's constitutional rights.

Re: Atlanta Ousts Fire Chief Who Has Antigay Views

Originally Posted by Zyphlin

Really?

So if I worked for a federal agency in 2012 and came into the office wearing a "NO BAMA" pin on one side of my shirt and a "VOTE MITT" on the other...that'd be okay? The government would be required ot "protected" that speech? That wouldn't be a punishable offense?

Or say I worked for the FBI as a non-LEO and I was passing around campaign pamplets regarding Mitt to people in the office....that'd be okay? Something that the governmnet would be "defending"?

You are giving examples where the person has broken specified laws that have been upheld by the SCOTUS.

The actual analogous scenario would be suspending an employee because you fear they MIGHT wear a campaign button to work.

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he stops voting for the Free Fish party.